* 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest
@ 2011-03-05 9:40 Francis Moreau
2011-03-06 12:42 ` Gleb Natapov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Francis Moreau @ 2011-03-05 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvm
[ was post on LKML but try it here since it's more appropriate ]
Hello,
I'm running kernel 2.6.38-rc6 with qemu-kvm 0.12.3.
Doing this inside the guest:
int main(void)
{
if (ioperm(0x3e0, 4, 1) < 0) {
perror("ioperm");
exit(1);
}
outb(0, 0x3e0);
inb(0x3e1);
printf("exiting succesfully\n");
return 0;
}
make a general protection error.
Looking for the faulty instruction with gdb and found that's the 'inb'
instruction the culprit.
Running the same program on the host works fine.
Could anybody tell me what's wrong ?
Thanks
--
Francis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-05 9:40 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest Francis Moreau @ 2011-03-06 12:42 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-03-06 12:55 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-06 19:36 ` Francis Moreau 0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2011-03-06 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Francis Moreau; +Cc: kvm On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 10:40:08AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > [ was post on LKML but try it here since it's more appropriate ] > > Hello, > > I'm running kernel 2.6.38-rc6 with qemu-kvm 0.12.3. > > Doing this inside the guest: > > int main(void) > { > if (ioperm(0x3e0, 4, 1) < 0) { > perror("ioperm"); > exit(1); > } > > outb(0, 0x3e0); > inb(0x3e1); > printf("exiting succesfully\n"); > return 0; > } > > make a general protection error. > > Looking for the faulty instruction with gdb and found that's the 'inb' > instruction the culprit. > > Running the same program on the host works fine. > > Could anybody tell me what's wrong ? > IO permission checking for 64-bit guest in KVM is wrong. The patch bellow should fix it. diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h index 50ebc32..7ef5b86 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h @@ -142,10 +142,8 @@ struct x86_emulate_ops { int (*pio_out_emulated)(int size, unsigned short port, const void *val, unsigned int count, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); - bool (*get_cached_descriptor)(struct desc_struct *desc, - int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); - void (*set_cached_descriptor)(struct desc_struct *desc, - int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); + bool (*get_cached_descriptor)(void *p, int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); + void (*set_cached_descriptor)(void *p, int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); u16 (*get_segment_selector)(int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); void (*set_segment_selector)(u16 sel, int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); unsigned long (*get_cached_segment_base)(int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c index ad46239..d7d8b63 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c @@ -1764,25 +1764,35 @@ static bool emulator_io_port_access_allowed(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt, struct x86_emulate_ops *ops, u16 port, u16 len) { - struct desc_struct tr_seg; + union { + struct desc_struct tss32; +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 + struct ldttss_desc64 tss64; +#endif + } tr_seg; int r; u16 io_bitmap_ptr; u8 perm, bit_idx = port & 0x7; unsigned mask = (1 << len) - 1; + unsigned long base; ops->get_cached_descriptor(&tr_seg, VCPU_SREG_TR, ctxt->vcpu); - if (!tr_seg.p) + if (!tr_seg.tss32.p) return false; - if (desc_limit_scaled(&tr_seg) < 103) + if (desc_limit_scaled(&tr_seg.tss32) < 103) return false; - r = ops->read_std(get_desc_base(&tr_seg) + 102, &io_bitmap_ptr, 2, - ctxt->vcpu, NULL); + base = get_desc_base(&tr_seg.tss32); +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 + if (ctxt->mode == X86EMUL_MODE_PROT64) + base |= ((u64)tr_seg.tss64.base3) << 32; +#endif + r = ops->read_std(base + 102, &io_bitmap_ptr, 2, ctxt->vcpu, NULL); if (r != X86EMUL_CONTINUE) return false; - if (io_bitmap_ptr + port/8 > desc_limit_scaled(&tr_seg)) + if (io_bitmap_ptr + port/8 > desc_limit_scaled(&tr_seg.tss32)) return false; - r = ops->read_std(get_desc_base(&tr_seg) + io_bitmap_ptr + port/8, - &perm, 1, ctxt->vcpu, NULL); + r = ops->read_std(base + io_bitmap_ptr + port/8, &perm, 1, ctxt->vcpu, + NULL); if (r != X86EMUL_CONTINUE) return false; if ((perm >> bit_idx) & mask) diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c index 785ae0c..e41e098 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c @@ -4162,11 +4162,12 @@ static unsigned long emulator_get_cached_segment_base(int seg, return get_segment_base(vcpu, seg); } -static bool emulator_get_cached_descriptor(struct desc_struct *desc, int seg, +static bool emulator_get_cached_descriptor(void *p, int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) { struct kvm_segment var; - + struct desc_struct *desc = p; + kvm_get_segment(vcpu, &var, seg); if (var.unusable) @@ -4185,13 +4186,22 @@ static bool emulator_get_cached_descriptor(struct desc_struct *desc, int seg, desc->d = var.db; desc->g = var.g; +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 + if (seg == VCPU_SREG_TR && is_long_mode(vcpu)) { + struct ldttss_desc64 *tss64 = p; + tss64->base3 = var.base >> 32; + tss64->zero1 = 0; + } +#endif + return true; } -static void emulator_set_cached_descriptor(struct desc_struct *desc, int seg, +static void emulator_set_cached_descriptor(void *p, int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) { struct kvm_segment var; + struct desc_struct *desc = p; /* needed to preserve selector */ kvm_get_segment(vcpu, &var, seg); @@ -4211,6 +4221,12 @@ static void emulator_set_cached_descriptor(struct desc_struct *desc, int seg, var.present = desc->p; var.unusable = !var.present; var.padding = 0; +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 + if (seg == VCPU_SREG_TR && is_long_mode(vcpu)) { + struct ldttss_desc64 *tss64 = p; + var.base |= ((u64)tss64->base3) << 32; + } +#endif kvm_set_segment(vcpu, &var, seg); return; -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-06 12:42 ` Gleb Natapov @ 2011-03-06 12:55 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-06 14:35 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-03-06 19:36 ` Francis Moreau 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-06 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov; +Cc: Francis Moreau, kvm On 03/06/2011 02:42 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > IO permission checking for 64-bit guest in KVM is wrong. The patch bellow > should fix it. > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h > index 50ebc32..7ef5b86 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h > @@ -142,10 +142,8 @@ struct x86_emulate_ops { > int (*pio_out_emulated)(int size, unsigned short port, const void *val, > unsigned int count, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > > - bool (*get_cached_descriptor)(struct desc_struct *desc, > - int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > - void (*set_cached_descriptor)(struct desc_struct *desc, > - int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > + bool (*get_cached_descriptor)(void *p, int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > + void (*set_cached_descriptor)(void *p, int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); Ugh, void *. Add a u64 *highword parameter, or something. > @@ -1764,25 +1764,35 @@ static bool emulator_io_port_access_allowed(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt, > struct x86_emulate_ops *ops, > u16 port, u16 len) > { > - struct desc_struct tr_seg; > + union { > + struct desc_struct tss32; > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > + struct ldttss_desc64 tss64; > +#endif > + } tr_seg; > int r; > u16 io_bitmap_ptr; > u8 perm, bit_idx = port& 0x7; > unsigned mask = (1<< len) - 1; > + unsigned long base; > > ops->get_cached_descriptor(&tr_seg, VCPU_SREG_TR, ctxt->vcpu); > - if (!tr_seg.p) > + if (!tr_seg.tss32.p) > return false; > - if (desc_limit_scaled(&tr_seg)< 103) > + if (desc_limit_scaled(&tr_seg.tss32)< 103) > return false; > - r = ops->read_std(get_desc_base(&tr_seg) + 102,&io_bitmap_ptr, 2, > - ctxt->vcpu, NULL); > + base = get_desc_base(&tr_seg.tss32); > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > + if (ctxt->mode == X86EMUL_MODE_PROT64) > + base |= ((u64)tr_seg.tss64.base3)<< 32; > +#endif > + r = ops->read_std(base + 102,&io_bitmap_ptr, 2, ctxt->vcpu, NULL); > if (r != X86EMUL_CONTINUE) > return false; Note: if we get a fault here, we ought to propagate it. Only happens if there's a race, since the cpu checks for these exceptions. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-06 12:55 ` Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-06 14:35 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-03-06 15:02 ` Avi Kivity 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2011-03-06 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Avi Kivity; +Cc: Francis Moreau, kvm On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 02:55:17PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 03/06/2011 02:42 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> > >IO permission checking for 64-bit guest in KVM is wrong. The patch bellow > >should fix it. > > > > > >diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h > >index 50ebc32..7ef5b86 100644 > >--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h > >+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h > >@@ -142,10 +142,8 @@ struct x86_emulate_ops { > > int (*pio_out_emulated)(int size, unsigned short port, const void *val, > > unsigned int count, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > > > >- bool (*get_cached_descriptor)(struct desc_struct *desc, > >- int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > >- void (*set_cached_descriptor)(struct desc_struct *desc, > >- int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > >+ bool (*get_cached_descriptor)(void *p, int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > >+ void (*set_cached_descriptor)(void *p, int seg, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > > Ugh, void *. > > Add a u64 *highword parameter, or something. > I modeled this after set_tssldt_descriptor() which takes void and cast it to different structures depending on 64bit/32bit, but u32 *highword will work too. > >@@ -1764,25 +1764,35 @@ static bool emulator_io_port_access_allowed(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt, > > struct x86_emulate_ops *ops, > > u16 port, u16 len) > > { > >- struct desc_struct tr_seg; > >+ union { > >+ struct desc_struct tss32; > >+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > >+ struct ldttss_desc64 tss64; > >+#endif > >+ } tr_seg; > > int r; > > u16 io_bitmap_ptr; > > u8 perm, bit_idx = port& 0x7; > > unsigned mask = (1<< len) - 1; > >+ unsigned long base; > > > > ops->get_cached_descriptor(&tr_seg, VCPU_SREG_TR, ctxt->vcpu); > >- if (!tr_seg.p) > >+ if (!tr_seg.tss32.p) > > return false; > >- if (desc_limit_scaled(&tr_seg)< 103) > >+ if (desc_limit_scaled(&tr_seg.tss32)< 103) > > return false; > >- r = ops->read_std(get_desc_base(&tr_seg) + 102,&io_bitmap_ptr, 2, > >- ctxt->vcpu, NULL); > >+ base = get_desc_base(&tr_seg.tss32); > >+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > >+ if (ctxt->mode == X86EMUL_MODE_PROT64) > >+ base |= ((u64)tr_seg.tss64.base3)<< 32; > >+#endif > >+ r = ops->read_std(base + 102,&io_bitmap_ptr, 2, ctxt->vcpu, NULL); > > if (r != X86EMUL_CONTINUE) > > return false; > > Note: if we get a fault here, we ought to propagate it. Only > happens if there's a race, since the cpu checks for these > exceptions. > Do you mean we need to propagate fault that read_std() returns and not always inject GP like we do now? -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-06 14:35 ` Gleb Natapov @ 2011-03-06 15:02 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-06 15:08 ` Avi Kivity 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-06 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov; +Cc: Francis Moreau, kvm On 03/06/2011 04:35 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > >+ r = ops->read_std(base + 102,&io_bitmap_ptr, 2, ctxt->vcpu, NULL); > > > if (r != X86EMUL_CONTINUE) > > > return false; > > > > Note: if we get a fault here, we ought to propagate it. Only > > happens if there's a race, since the cpu checks for these > > exceptions. > > > Do you mean we need to propagate fault that read_std() returns and not > always inject GP like we do now? Yes, it could be a #PF (or #TS or #NPF). (for #TS we need additional logic... will this arch never end?) -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-06 15:02 ` Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-06 15:08 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-09 7:05 ` Francis Moreau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-06 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov; +Cc: Francis Moreau, kvm On 03/06/2011 05:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > (for #TS we need additional logic... will this arch never end?) > Actually these instructions don't generate #TS. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-06 15:08 ` Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-09 7:05 ` Francis Moreau 2011-03-09 9:25 ` Gleb Natapov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Francis Moreau @ 2011-03-09 7:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Avi Kivity; +Cc: Gleb Natapov, kvm Hi, On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/06/2011 05:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >> (for #TS we need additional logic... will this arch never end?) >> > > Actually these instructions don't generate #TS. > I just wanted to know if this issue is going to be fixed before 2.6.38 is out ? Thanks -- Francis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-09 7:05 ` Francis Moreau @ 2011-03-09 9:25 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-03-09 9:26 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-09 9:30 ` Francis Moreau 0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2011-03-09 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Francis Moreau; +Cc: Avi Kivity, kvm On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:05:54AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 03/06/2011 05:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> > >> (for #TS we need additional logic... will this arch never end?) > >> > > > > Actually these instructions don't generate #TS. > > > > I just wanted to know if this issue is going to be fixed before 2.6.38 is out ? > I posted updated patches. It is up to maintainers to decide if the patches should be included in 2.6.38 at such late rc stage. -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-09 9:25 ` Gleb Natapov @ 2011-03-09 9:26 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-09 9:28 ` Francis Moreau 2011-03-09 9:30 ` Francis Moreau 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-09 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov; +Cc: Francis Moreau, kvm On 03/09/2011 11:25 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:05:54AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 03/06/2011 05:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > >> > > >> (for #TS we need additional logic... will this arch never end?) > > >> > > > > > > Actually these instructions don't generate #TS. > > > > > > > I just wanted to know if this issue is going to be fixed before 2.6.38 is out ? > > > I posted updated patches. It is up to maintainers to decide if the > patches should be included in 2.6.38 at such late rc stage. Probably not. The problematic case is not very mainstream. We'll merge it into 2.6.39 and backport into 2.6.38.1. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-09 9:26 ` Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-09 9:28 ` Francis Moreau 2011-03-09 9:29 ` Avi Kivity 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Francis Moreau @ 2011-03-09 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Avi Kivity; +Cc: Gleb Natapov, kvm On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/09/2011 11:25 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:05:54AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com> wrote: >> > > On 03/06/2011 05:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> > >> >> > >> (for #TS we need additional logic... will this arch never end?) >> > >> >> > > >> > > Actually these instructions don't generate #TS. >> > > >> > >> > I just wanted to know if this issue is going to be fixed before 2.6.38 >> > is out ? >> > >> I posted updated patches. It is up to maintainers to decide if the >> patches should be included in 2.6.38 at such late rc stage. > > Probably not. The problematic case is not very mainstream. > > We'll merge it into 2.6.39 and backport into 2.6.38.1. maybe 2.6.35.x too ? Thanks -- Francis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-09 9:28 ` Francis Moreau @ 2011-03-09 9:29 ` Avi Kivity 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-09 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Francis Moreau; +Cc: Gleb Natapov, kvm On 03/09/2011 11:28 AM, Francis Moreau wrote: > > Probably not. The problematic case is not very mainstream. > > > > We'll merge it into 2.6.39 and backport into 2.6.38.1. > > maybe 2.6.35.x too ? > It will eventually trickle down to all maintained stable series. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-09 9:25 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-03-09 9:26 ` Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-09 9:30 ` Francis Moreau 2011-03-09 9:32 ` Gleb Natapov 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Francis Moreau @ 2011-03-09 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov; +Cc: Avi Kivity, kvm On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:05:54AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On 03/06/2011 05:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >> >> >> (for #TS we need additional logic... will this arch never end?) >> >> >> > >> > Actually these instructions don't generate #TS. >> > >> >> I just wanted to know if this issue is going to be fixed before 2.6.38 is out ? >> > I posted updated patches. It is up to maintainers to decide if the > patches should be included in 2.6.38 at such late rc stage. > Would have been nice to CC me since I reported the issue. thanks -- Francis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-09 9:30 ` Francis Moreau @ 2011-03-09 9:32 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-03-09 10:03 ` Avi Kivity 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2011-03-09 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Francis Moreau; +Cc: Avi Kivity, kvm On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:30:56AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:05:54AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > On 03/06/2011 05:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> >> > >> >> (for #TS we need additional logic... will this arch never end?) > >> >> > >> > > >> > Actually these instructions don't generate #TS. > >> > > >> > >> I just wanted to know if this issue is going to be fixed before 2.6.38 is out ? > >> > > I posted updated patches. It is up to maintainers to decide if the > > patches should be included in 2.6.38 at such late rc stage. > > > > Would have been nice to CC me since I reported the issue. > Yes, sorry about that. Avi please add Reported-by: to the patch too. -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-09 9:32 ` Gleb Natapov @ 2011-03-09 10:03 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-09 10:07 ` Francis Moreau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-09 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov; +Cc: Francis Moreau, kvm On 03/09/2011 11:32 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:30:56AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Gleb Natapov<gleb@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:05:54AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com> wrote: > > >> > On 03/06/2011 05:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> (for #TS we need additional logic... will this arch never end?) > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > Actually these instructions don't generate #TS. > > >> > > > >> > > >> I just wanted to know if this issue is going to be fixed before 2.6.38 is out ? > > >> > > > I posted updated patches. It is up to maintainers to decide if the > > > patches should be included in 2.6.38 at such late rc stage. > > > > > > > Would have been nice to CC me since I reported the issue. > > > Yes, sorry about that. Avi please add Reported-by: to the patch too. > Will be happy to add an -and-tested-by: too if you get the chance. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-09 10:03 ` Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-09 10:07 ` Francis Moreau 2011-05-27 10:22 ` Francis Moreau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Francis Moreau @ 2011-03-09 10:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Avi Kivity; +Cc: Gleb Natapov, kvm On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/09/2011 11:32 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:30:56AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Gleb Natapov<gleb@redhat.com> wrote: >> > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:05:54AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: >> > >> Hi, >> > >> >> > >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com> wrote: >> > >> > On 03/06/2011 05:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> (for #TS we need additional logic... will this arch never end?) >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > Actually these instructions don't generate #TS. >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> I just wanted to know if this issue is going to be fixed before >> > 2.6.38 is out ? >> > >> >> > > I posted updated patches. It is up to maintainers to decide if the >> > > patches should be included in 2.6.38 at such late rc stage. >> > > >> > >> > Would have been nice to CC me since I reported the issue. >> > >> Yes, sorry about that. Avi please add Reported-by: to the patch too. >> > > Will be happy to add an -and-tested-by: too if you get the chance. > Sure you can add this since I already tested it and it fixed my test case. thanks -- Francis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-09 10:07 ` Francis Moreau @ 2011-05-27 10:22 ` Francis Moreau 2011-05-27 12:48 ` Gleb Natapov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Francis Moreau @ 2011-05-27 10:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Avi Kivity; +Cc: Gleb Natapov, kvm Hi guys, Sorry for resurrecting this but I just checkout kernel v2.6.39 and this fix doesn't seem to be present in this release... Am I wrong ? Thanks On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Francis Moreau <francis.moro@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 03/09/2011 11:32 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:30:56AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: >>> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Gleb Natapov<gleb@redhat.com> wrote: >>> > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:05:54AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: >>> > >> Hi, >>> > >> >>> > >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com> wrote: >>> > >> > On 03/06/2011 05:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> (for #TS we need additional logic... will this arch never end?) >>> > >> >> >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Actually these instructions don't generate #TS. >>> > >> > >>> > >> >>> > >> I just wanted to know if this issue is going to be fixed before >>> > 2.6.38 is out ? >>> > >> >>> > > I posted updated patches. It is up to maintainers to decide if the >>> > > patches should be included in 2.6.38 at such late rc stage. >>> > > >>> > >>> > Would have been nice to CC me since I reported the issue. >>> > >>> Yes, sorry about that. Avi please add Reported-by: to the patch too. >>> >> >> Will be happy to add an -and-tested-by: too if you get the chance. >> > > Sure you can add this since I already tested it and it fixed my test case. > > thanks > -- > Francis > -- Francis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-05-27 10:22 ` Francis Moreau @ 2011-05-27 12:48 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-05-27 14:30 ` Francis Moreau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2011-05-27 12:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Francis Moreau; +Cc: Avi Kivity, kvm On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:22:52PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: > Hi guys, > > Sorry for resurrecting this but I just checkout kernel v2.6.39 and > this fix doesn't seem to be present in this release... > > Am I wrong ? > Hmm. Should be fixed by commit: 5601d05b8c340ee2643febc146099325eff187eb > Thanks > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Francis Moreau <francis.moro@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 03/09/2011 11:32 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:30:56AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > >>> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Gleb Natapov<gleb@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:05:54AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > >>> > >> Hi, > >>> > >> > >>> > >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >> > On 03/06/2011 05:02 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> (for #TS we need additional logic... will this arch never end?) > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > Actually these instructions don't generate #TS. > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > >>> > >> I just wanted to know if this issue is going to be fixed before > >>> > 2.6.38 is out ? > >>> > >> > >>> > > I posted updated patches. It is up to maintainers to decide if the > >>> > > patches should be included in 2.6.38 at such late rc stage. > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > Would have been nice to CC me since I reported the issue. > >>> > > >>> Yes, sorry about that. Avi please add Reported-by: to the patch too. > >>> > >> > >> Will be happy to add an -and-tested-by: too if you get the chance. > >> > > > > Sure you can add this since I already tested it and it fixed my test case. > > > > thanks > > -- > > Francis > > > > > > -- > Francis -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-05-27 12:48 ` Gleb Natapov @ 2011-05-27 14:30 ` Francis Moreau 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Francis Moreau @ 2011-05-27 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov; +Cc: Avi Kivity, kvm Hello 2011/5/27 Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:22:52PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> Sorry for resurrecting this but I just checkout kernel v2.6.39 and >> this fix doesn't seem to be present in this release... >> >> Am I wrong ? >> > Hmm. Should be fixed by commit: 5601d05b8c340ee2643febc146099325eff187eb > Ah you're right, I was using a slightly different fix (your orginal one), and I missed this commit. Thanks -- Francis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest 2011-03-06 12:42 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-03-06 12:55 ` Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-06 19:36 ` Francis Moreau 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Francis Moreau @ 2011-03-06 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov; +Cc: kvm Hi On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 10:40:08AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > > IO permission checking for 64-bit guest in KVM is wrong. The patch bellow > should fix it. > Yes it fixes the reported issue. (BTW git complained that it adds some trailing white spaces). Thanks -- Francis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest
@ 2011-03-04 14:50 Francis Moreau
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Francis Moreau @ 2011-03-04 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List
Hello,
I'm running kernel 2.6.38-rc6 with qemu-kvm 0.12.3.
Doing this inside the guest:
int main(void)
{
if (ioperm(0x3e0, 4, 1) < 0) {
perror("ioperm");
exit(1);
}
outb(0, 0x3e0);
inb(0x3e1);
printf("exiting succesfully\n");
return 0;
}
make a general protection error.
Looking for the faulty instruction with gdb and found that's the 'inb'
instruction the culprit.
Running the same program on the host works fine.
Could anybody tell me what's wrong ?
Thanks
--
Francis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in threadend of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-27 14:30 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-03-05 9:40 2.6.38-rc6: general protection error inside KVM 64 bits guest Francis Moreau 2011-03-06 12:42 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-03-06 12:55 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-06 14:35 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-03-06 15:02 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-06 15:08 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-09 7:05 ` Francis Moreau 2011-03-09 9:25 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-03-09 9:26 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-09 9:28 ` Francis Moreau 2011-03-09 9:29 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-09 9:30 ` Francis Moreau 2011-03-09 9:32 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-03-09 10:03 ` Avi Kivity 2011-03-09 10:07 ` Francis Moreau 2011-05-27 10:22 ` Francis Moreau 2011-05-27 12:48 ` Gleb Natapov 2011-05-27 14:30 ` Francis Moreau 2011-03-06 19:36 ` Francis Moreau -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2011-03-04 14:50 Francis Moreau
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.